|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 15:34:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Spoon Thumb
At least now we know it isn't a design feature.
And it is the player base's fault for no one finding this out on sisi. How many ppl own POS?
And tbh how many ppl are going to bother checking their POS on sisi or even refuelling them when there are no changes to them from previous patch
When Sisi is mirrored all POS are removed, also, gaining sov takes just as long on the test server as on TQ, and as far as I'm aware the last mirror + changes that cause this, were not left on the test server long enough before Trinity was released, so no one could have tested it. It's simply not good enough to release this sort of thing without getting people to test it. And because it takes 5 weeks for sov 3 on sisi as well, you had better be telling people to make sure they test it.. AND waiting 5 weeks before releasing a patch post-mirror.
There needs to be a way to test this quicker on Sisi, or no one will test it if they're not being paid to, and obviously not enough are.
Also, we all make mistakes, but the length of time it takes CCP to admit them seems to be unreasonably long. Lots of POS's were destroyed but I bet it took some large alliance to all petition about what was clearly an exploit before action was taken. For some GMs to have ruled clear exploits as valid raises eyebrows indeed.
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 15:36:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Spoon Thumb
Originally by: Splagada could you lock down fuel burn while this is in effect?
its pretty awesome quality&testers you got there lol
Moon mining / reacting seems to be unaffected, so this would adversely favour ppl using their POS to do that
Obviously the same lockdown would stop that (pos's wouldn't cycle) of course then prices would skyrocked of stockpiles of the stuff needed for the new ships.
Anyway, any POS with an online cynojammer / cyno generator is currently 'disabled' for moon mining. 2.5 days I've been waiting on a petition for that. And I can't turn them off either.
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 15:42:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Spoon Thumb or is there anyhting more to add
Any tower with a sov module online cannot use any moon miners / reactors / silos etc.
Some were saying they were not going into reinforced or sending mails when attacked.
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 15:47:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Nyphur - POS with no password have no shield bubble. This is a feature but clearly the devs didn't consider that people could lock POS modules of online POS during wars.
This has always been the case (if you didn't set a password it said (inactive), and I have flown into many-a hostile POS and shot stuff etc for months, when they didn't have it set. Now though, the display bug is fixed, and you can actually see that they don't have a shield. Good when setting up a POS (no more false comfort), bad in that some pos's that have been unprotected for a while are now visibly so.
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 15:49:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Dragon Greg You don't need a tower with "special" structures for that to happen (bridges, jammers, etc), it happens for towers without all that stuff as well, it's extremely random.
Wierd, I'm running 20 ish towers, two have sov structures, those two have bridges (offline and were pre-patch), and one has a cyno generator. Of them, the only one that is broken for moon mining, is the one that had the cyno generator array online (and it cannot be turned off).
The others all still work fine (for mining/reacting).
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 16:06:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Yakoff So out of curiosity, say some one knocked a pos into reinforced mode and disabled it's arrays. This was before today's announcement. Will said knockers get banned?
Further into that, say the defenders of the pos now take advantage of this and rep their pos's shields and rep the arrays as well. Are the defenders to be banned as well?
If you are really really lucky what was destroyed you can get back. As for bannings, until they announce it's an exploit usually not. Though some of the rather 'obvious' exploits people can be banned for without an announcement, I doubt this one will, they'll be too busy dealing with petitions...
Defenders repping, while it sucks, is maintaing the status quo, TBH I wouldn't have attacked anything knowing how buggy POS's were at the moment, since it was fairly obvious that an announcement like this should have been made within 12 hours of the server coming up.
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 17:00:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Fred0 We don't know if planting pos is allowed. Hiding from an attacking force inside pos ff?. Jumping in capitals to a system that should be cynojammed etc.
Quote: This also means that no control towers may be set up where a different alliance holds sovereignty
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 17:05:00 -
[8]
It would only make sense that no capital ships can enter systems with cyno jammers active, online, but non-functional.. That's textbook exploit. Though on the other hand, the alliances that own those should not be able to either. (although typically they'd use the now non-functional bridges :o )
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 17:20:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ciphero That's pretty incredible. Pretty much the entire basis of 0.0 (i.e. space-claiming) just switched off.
Astounding.
The patch switched them off, this just slows its decline to from off to distant memory.
Hopefully this gets fixed in short order and we can return to normal levels of pew pew. It really needed to be banned from Dec 6th until they fixed it, which would have hopefully have been already if it was acknowledged as quickly as it should have been. I mean, working dec 5th, not dec 6th.. hint: it was related to something that changed !
In the future I think new content and balancing changes etc need to be seperate QA tested patches. I think all the shiny toys distracted from the real testing that needed to be done.
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 17:22:00 -
[10]
I don't want free game time, I wan't the game back ASAP. Who cares about a few bucks, I care about the game working at least half as well as it did a week ago. And I DON'T want to see this happen again. Halve the new features and balancing, get the testing right. I'd trade every new feature for what we had a week ago in an instant.
|
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 17:24:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Bur Banhammer So what I don't understand is that if you have a war dec on, and you are attacking a POS "As of last night", now they have time to reinforce everything you destroyed, regain shields, and fix the POS armor. Or does this not include war dec's? I don't think ALL of the POS attacks are and exploit.
It's all POS's, because if they had their POS's working right, they might have not had it go into reinforced in the first place... It might have been saved etc.
It means that when POS's were buggy you should have saved your efforts and not shot any at all, now you have the pay the price just as the many that lost POS's due to bugs have to.
Yep, attackers and defenders are equally annoyed that it's taken days to announce this.
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 03:40:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Popsikle Edited by: Popsikle on 10/12/2007 01:48:14By far Trinity is the most bugged patch they've ever put out, and actually is probably on par with some of the SWG patches we used to have, that's not really a good thing
Hmm, it's more 'stable' than some older patches (that used to crash regularly), but it has broken far far more things that used to work, maybe only because they have more things now and they changed alot more, and they're better at 'stability' testing, but not so much at 'what did we break' testing.
|
|
|
|